the “Human Rights Manual on Prison Roles” adopted in July 2008. However, the information presented by Peru is not clear on whether such specialized courses are taught to prison staff at different levels and distinct times of employment or if they are only taught to "new" prison staff. With regard to education aimed at agents of the National Police and the Armed Forces, the Court appreciates the various measures taken since the beginning of the last decade to provide training in "human rights" and "international humanitarian law" to the staff at the various levels and sectors of those security forces (supra Considering clause 50). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the Court to properly assess compliance with this measure of reparation and to declare that it has been fulfilled, it requires that Peru provide a copy of the documents confirming the actions taken, and that its content cover the international standards of use of force to maintain public order in prisons, as well as provide clarity as to the officials who have received and will receive training, and will continue with it. F. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition (Operative paragraphs 12, 16, and 18) F.1) Measures ordered by the Court 55. According to the provisions of operative paragraphs 12, 16, and 17, and paragraphs 445, 446, 447, 454, 459, 462 and 463 of the Judgment as well as in paragraphs 12, 13, 19 and 57 of the Judgment of Interpretation, the Court decided that the State should implement the following measures of satisfaction: a) b) c) “must carry out, within a one-year period, a public act of acknowledgment of its responsibility in relation to the violations declared in [the] Judgment and as any apology to the victims and for the satisfaction of their next of kin, in a public ceremony with the presence of high State authorities and of the victims and their next of kin, and […] transmit said act through the media, including the transmission on radio and television”; “publish[, within a period of six months, as of notification of the Judgment,] in the Official Newspaper and in another newspaper of national circulation. For these publications the Court establishes a six- month period, as of the notification of [the] Judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and the operative part of the same, as well as broadcast the mentioned parts of the […] Judgment, through a radio station and a television channel, both of ample national coverage, at least on two occasions with an interval of two weeks between each of them,” and “within one year from the date of notification of the Judgment,” “establish a park or erect a monument that meets the objective and purpose of the measure of reparation ordered by the Court in [the] Judgment” on the merits, reparations and costs. 56 The Court had ordered another measure in the Judgment on the merits 57, but in order to 56 Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 3, para. 57. 57 In paragraphs 453 and 454 of the Judgment on the merits, the Court indicated that “[r]egarding the measures requested by the Commission and the intervener, on the construction of monuments and the creation of a park in “the area of Canto Grande’, the State argued that ‘a monument (called the Eye that Cries) has already been erected in a public place of the capital of the Republic in favor of all the victims of the conflict, and that it is the subject of continuous memorial and commemoration acts.” In this sense, the Court valued the existence of the monument and public area called “The Eye that Cries,” created upon the request of civil society and with the collaboration of state authorities, which constitutes an important public acknowledgment to the victims of violence in Peru. However, the Tribunal considered that, within a one-year period, “the State [was to] ensure that all the people declared as deceased victims in the present Judgment be represented in said monument.” For this, the Court 24